Eco-friendly war: The paradox of military activity amid the climate crisis

By Minyeong Kim Han

In Korea, obtaining data related to the arms trade is like pulling teeth. Even when filing for information disclosure, requests are often denied in the name of national security or corporate confidentiality. This February, the Korea Customs Service reclassified previously disclosed import-export statistics on arms as non-public information. Given these circumstances, activists such as myself, working in peace and human rights, rely on arms fairs and expositions as an essential source of information. I visited the inaugural Korea Army International Defense Exhibition (KADEX) in the first week of October to investigate. Held in Gyeryongdae, central South Korea, KADEX attracted leading Korean arms manufacturers and other weapons companies from around the world, as well as arms dealers and military officials from various countries. Weapons that are internationally regulated under the Cluster Munition Convention and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention were displayed, as South Korea has not yet acceded to these conventions.

In addition, advanced weapons incorporating state-of-the-art technologies, such as drones, unmanned aerial vehicles and AI-based weapon systems, showcased the impressive pace of technological advancements across many areas of weaponry. In recent years, one area that has particularly captured my interest at these arms exhibitions is the so-called eco-friendly technologies promoted by weapons companies. As society becomes increasingly aware of the severity of the climate change, social pressures for corporations to fulfil environmental, social, and governance (ESG) accountability have also grown, leaving arms companies with no choice but to follow suit. Terms like “eco-friendly,” “carbon neutrality,” and “sustainability” are commonly seen at these expos. At KADEX, Poongsan, one of the few Korean companies producing cluster munitions, promoted its lead-free bullets as “eco-friendly ammunition.”

With “eco-friendly” weapons that do not emit carbon or pollutants, “sustainable” wars are no longer a distant future. In reality, militaries worldwide are rapidly introducing eco-friendly weaponry. If combat vehicles emit no carbon, armoured vehicles are sold to conflict zones yet powered by continuously advancing eco-friendly energies, and shell casings used in battles fall into rainforests without causing lead contamination, can we truly sleep more soundly?

The climate crisis and military activities are intricately intertwined, influencing each other in complex ways. Climate change accelerates social and political instability worldwide, fuelling stronger militarism. In the absence of mechanisms for peaceful cooperation, recourse and food shortages caused by climate change, along with increasingly frequent abnormal climate events, aggravate tensions and conflicts between countries. In this context, South Korea’s Yoon administration also designated the climate crisis as one of the new security threats in 2023.

If we recognize the climate crisis as a critical threat to our lives, what should be the responsibilities of governments and businesses? Shouldn’t they be building cooperative relationships to replace and manage risks, investing more resources in climate change mitigation and response, and putting an end to wars that take countless lives and devastate the land? Unfortunately, humanity faces intensifying wars and escalating threats of conflict, placing the sustainability of life in grave jeopardy.

Carbon emissions from the military sector remain largely undisclosed. Following the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s decision to exclude military emissions from national tallies, the 2015 Paris Agreement also left military emissions reporting as a voluntary option. Consequently, carbon emissions from military activities represent a significant blind spot. In South Korea, the government disclosed military sector carbon emissions for the first and only time in 2020. According to the Ministry of National Defense, military carbon emissions amounted to 3.88 million tons of CO2eq, surpassing the total emissions of the entire public sector—3.70 million tons of CO2eq—across 738 central and local government bodies. Yet, with few exceptions, most of the military sector is exempt from greenhouse gas management oversight due to its direct relation to national security and defence.

Transparency in the military sector is directly linked to public safety. Without transparent oversight of the arms trade, the risk of weapons being exported to war criminal states or countries or countries with frequent human rights violations—where they may be used for massacres or abuses—remains alarmingly high. Climate scientists warn that if global temperatures rise more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the world will face severe climate catastrophes. To prevent this, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by over 40 percent by 2030. However, the military sector effectively remains exempt from this responsibility.

The military security discourse, long justified under the pretext of national security, is rooted in a rigid dichotomy that distinguishes “us” from “them.” However, given the complex crises humanity faces today, we cannot address existing threats and conflicts within a framework that divides allies from adversaries. The climate crisis confronting us cannot be solved through military spending and weaponry. In fact, this binary view of friend-versus-foe contributes to the crisis. Military security, based on otherization and antagonism, perpetuates military training, base construction, and arms production, generating substantial carbon emissions. If the world’s combined military sector were considered a nation, it would rank as the fourth largest emitter, yet it remains exempt from emissions reporting and reduction mandates under the guise of national security. Moreover, the vast military expenditures involved drain resources from budgets intended for climate change response and adaptation.

The complex crises we face can only be resolved when we recognize how our daily lives are interconnected with those of other human and non-human beings and work to restore these connections toward building peace. Our call to action on the climate crisis, therefore, should aim to restore interdependence and connectivity of “all.” Within this intertwined web, we can discover our ethical obligations and realize that the power to fulfil them lies within ourselves.

In an era marked by the climate crisis and war, our path forward should not be about waging sustainable war but about ending war itself. Military activities under the pretext of national security are worsening the climate crisis, and true peace—essential to resolve the climate crisis—cannot be achieved through weaponry or military force. If we are to advocate for the sustainability of humanity and the Earth, our responsibility is to end wars and strive to build lasting peace.

The views in this article are not necessarily those of FES.